jules?

I don’t get it, is it me or am I missing some truth with regards to the historicity of Jesus? But an apology first in that I realise that the debate is operating currently on another [or more] thread, however I have some specifics and the reasoning is rather long winded.

People speak of the core ‘truth’, that once the myth is stripped away there is still a man at the centre of the story. Even Dawkins on a recent t.v. show did not hesitate to declare Jesus to be a great historical figure and in a limited poll on this site the majority opinion was that Jesus did exist. So what is the core truth?

These are the areas that I feel discount an historical man.

 Apocalyptic belief of several centuries expected the return of a messiah and this expectation was particularly focused between 100 bce- 100 c.e. based on the date/age of the world. No coincidence that Jesus should turn up when he did.
 Apocalyptic belief triggered the revolution and many believed that god would intervene at the last moment even when the Temple fell to Rome.
 Expectation of the coming messiah was varied ranging from Isaiah’s suffering Servant to the return of Moses or David or descendant to a scary half dead cosmic lamb.
 Post apocalyptic kingdom was also up for debate, was it to be a glorious Israel, a neoplatonic semi divine world, heavenly or earthly or a just society post revolution?
 The mass suicide at Masada marked a turning point in belief in that the siege had held out at the Temple and fought to the death expecting god to appear and defeat the Romans those at Masada had reinterpreted scripture and instead decided to meet god post death in heaven.
 Expectation of a new era brought many wannabe messiahs. The account of the Egyptian at the mount of olives not only imitated prophesy but is repeated, less the massacre, in the Gospels. Each messiah brought his own take of the nature of apocalypse as well as followers.
 What’s in a name? Joshua the messiah [god saves] is appropriate in that Joshua bar Nun [the fish] leads the people to the promised land and crosses the Jordan. Destroys the enemies of Israel, builds an empire and along with Moses has the ear of god travelling with him to get the Law. Joshua is also assigned the title ‘Son of God’ as are all Israelite leaders. There are also several ‘Joshuas’ preaching the End Time in the centuries of expectation.
 Despite so much controversy surrounding what the Essene believed there seems to be enough similarities between them [and indeed other Pharisee sects] and Christians to demonstrate that the belief structure did not just appear with one person but evolved over a period of centuries. Angels, holy spirits, renewal/rebirth/ ritual washing through baptism, describing themselves as ‘poor’ or ‘meek’ and of course the coming kingdom of god etc being just some of the beliefs.
 The shared principle beliefs of apocalyptic Jew and Christian is of an End Time which would be heralded by a messiah and that salvation can be achieved by adherence to the law. The differences are in interpretation of the law as well as understanding the prophesies of the coming End Time.
 Prophesy and this is the chunky bit; Isaiah is particularly importance because it laid out the road map to judgement day. An event described with the usual dark skies and global destruction but one where the wicked and the innocent of neighbouring countries will be slaughtered including wayward Jews as well as the enemy at the gates of Jerusalem but ultimately god will ensure the return of a warrior messiah and the Jewish enslavement of other nations. The most important event is features the ‘suffering servant’ [Isaiah 52:13] who is God’s messenger

[The suffering servant will ]‘succeed in his task he will be highly honoured’ yet he would be despised, ignored and go without much notice. his suffering being for everybody’s sins. ‘He was treated harshly but endured it humbly, he never said a word, like a lamb to slaughter…..He was arrested and sentenced and led off to die and no one cared about his fate. He was put to death for the sins of our people. He was placed in a grave with evil men he was buried with the rich, even though he had never committed a crime or ever told a lie.’ And after suffering his reward ‘he will again have joy’ and have ‘ a place of honour a place among great and powerful men’. It is God’s suffering servant that allows Israel’s sins to be forgiven by God and thus herald a new Jerusalem and a new age.

The suffering servant is the proto-Jesus and his suffering and death is mirrored in the Gospels almost word for word except rather than being the beautiful heroic son of God which seems to owe more to Greek ideals he is ugly, deformed even and entirely unmemorable. Jesus undergoes the same suffering and for the same goal; that of taking the place of many sinners and praying they might be forgiven. Jesus is ultimately successful in the goal set by god and is highly honoured, yet is rejected by the people who chose a criminal over him, Jesus suffers for other peoples sin, he was wounded and beaten and treated harshly including being pierced but endures it humbly without saying a word, [like a lamb to slaughter] at least in John’s account. He was arrested, sentenced and led off to die. Where as the suffering servant is placed in a grave with evil men and buried with the rich, Jesus is crucified with criminals and placed in the rich tomb in a garden. The Gospel writers dramatised the fate of the suffering servant up dating it with the Roman method of execution yet compelled by prophesy to completely contradict actual Roman practises which would have left the body up to rot. They also had the tricky problem of finding a rich tomb owner; enter Joseph of Aramathia; rich, a secret follower and even having the name Aramathia a.k.a.‘best apostle’ who just so happens to be a member of the Jewish government with the connections to get Pilate to release the body.

The prophesy of Isaiah did not make it easy for the faithful to understand how events leading up to judgement day would pan out. It mentions the birth of Emmanuel but does not mention if he is the messiah only that it will be a sign. It mentions the return of warrior king of the Davidic line but few details. Psalm 22 was also important describing the suffering of the messiah with the particular lines ‘My God my God , why have you forsaken me’ and ‘they have pierced my hands and feet’. Added to the interpretations of Daniel, Ezekiel and Enoch there was a huge amount possibilities. Apocalyptic Jews would have years of tradition and the skill of midrash to fit it all together early Christians [particularly the converted Greco-roman] would have not been so well equipped. Gospel writers cram dozens of prophesies into the text with many being out of context. But [and this is my opinion] rather than invent the life of Jesus they are simply reconstructing and dramatising all the available data and in fact Luke opens his gospel with such a statement.

 The one area where early church beliefs tie into the Gospels is the last supper or Passover feast and it is a direct inheritance of Essene practise. The Manual of Discipline [Dead Sea Scroll document] sets out ritual and daily life. It features arrangements regarding one of the most important events to happen, which was the Messianic Banquet. God would send the two messiahs when the world was purged and a new world began and the leaders of the tribes of Israel and the congregation, the name of the general select, would all sit down, in the appropriate order and share a meal and new wine.

“the Messiah will stretch forth his hand upon the bread and then all the Congregation of the community will give blessings” [The Manual of Discipline]

John Allegro writing about this Dead Sea Scroll contents suggested that the parable about the loaves and fishes is in fact a rehearsal of the messianic banquet. The Essene were re-enacting the first Passover meal held a thousand years earlier. Headed by their saviour Moses with Aaron at his side, the leaders of the twelve tribes gave thanks to God as the angel of death flew over the land causing death and destruction in its wake. Then the blood sacrifice of a lamb was good enough to absolve them of their sins and so purify them before they entered the new kingdom that awaited. It is not coincidence that Jesus is tried just in time to be sacrificed at Passover, his bones remaining unbroken and that he declares that his flesh is to be eaten. Neither are the twelve disciples or the Twin myth or cousin John.




 The desire of the Greco-Roman audience to have a digestible account of the saviour of the End Times appears to be the driving force in generating an historical character. All ‘historical’ documents derive from the Greco-roman world and it is telling that no documents emerge directly from Palestine. Mark’s lack of knowledge of the country and inaccuracies would not have been important as knowledge of the historical man was proof to the follower that the End Time was to commence. Jesus is not the main event he was only the warm-up act to one that was widely expected by pagans across the empire as mentioned by Celsus. Jews in Rome were expectant but they appear to be radical armagedonists proclaiming a bloody and fiery end to pagans and naturally they would be inspired to make such predictions at the behest of their ‘Chrestus’.


 The Roman adoption of the Messiah ‘king of the world’ by Vespasian as well as the extensive coverage of his title by historians indicates that Jewish belief was current in the wider Roman community. The dramatisation by Mark of a poor hero could be a satirical/political response but the lack of other history does not bode well for an actual Jesus of Galilee but it does for a composite character of the revolutionary anti hero type who comes from the wild radical province where so many other wannabe revolutionaries emerged who nearly saw an unbeatable empire beaten.

 The complete destruction of the temple forced the prophesies to be reinterpreted rather than to be discarded and kingly revolution was to be replaced with the only alternative of a spiritual new age. The hopes and expectations of a material kingdom being executed by Rome only to rise up in spiritual form.


 The letters of Paul are the only references to brothers of a messiah, yet the Jesus Paul knows is spiritual and the description of the passion vague. Did he make it up? Did he know of an Essene [or other sect] group that had a representative at the head of symbolic Passover feast surrounded by 12 tribal representatives? In which case it would be possible to have as many anointed saviours as there were apocalyptic Jewish groups whether they be in Palestine or across the Greco-roman world. Something like tribute Elvis’s or perhaps a santa as he is not based on an actual historical person. Oh and perhaps Josephus’ account of James makes more sense if ‘Brother of the messiah’ is a title. There are plenty of ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ out there who are not really related. I think it is logical because the messiah doesn’t actual get a mention.


Jesus is a specific construct for a specific event, the prophesies were widely know although widely interpreted to allow anyone to step up to the role. The fact that many are mentioned but Jesus is not would suggest historical material and belief is dramatised in a particularly Greco-roman way. Paul offers Judaism lite and eventually the apocalyptic cult degenerates into salvation for all. With the evidence pointing to a distinctly symbolic non historical spiritual messiah I search for the ‘core’ truth for an historical JC and appear to find it missing. Any places I should look?

Please be critical of my logic, I will wait and see before I rush in to respond.

Jules

spamandham

I don't see anything wrong with your assessment. I don't think that positing an historical core to Jesus explains any of the known facts, while on the otherhand, it makes some facts more confusing.

Our good friend Bill (of Ockham) would remind us not to introduce unnecessary entities while trying to understand the observations.

That said, I think it's certainly possible that there was a historical core to the Jesus of Christianity, but no reason to claim it likely.

aa5874

There is ALWAYS the possibility that there was an historical core to Jesus just as there is ALWAYS the possibility that Jesus had NO historical core.

And, a claim that it is possible that Jesus had an historical core does not invalidate or eliminate any other view, and is not a claim of any evidentiary value, it is just a simple claim which can be rebutted by the counter-claim that Jesus had no historical core.

All that is needed to come to a decision is to look at the evidence or lack thereof from independent sources, since the Jesus proposed by the NT and early christians writers is most likely NOT to have existed as described.

There are basically only three independent sources that give the name of a figure who had followers called christians in the 1st century, these are Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Antiquities of the Jews mentioned Jesus the Christ but these are considered forgeries, Taciitus mentioned Christus which is ambiguous and Suetonius mentioned ChrEstus who may be some other unknown person.

And Philo, a supposed contemporary of Jesus, never mentioned Jesus or christians at all, even though he mentioned Pilate.

The possibility that Jesus had an historical core is an extremely weak proposition.

Clivedurdle

On the anti hero bit Augustus and Jesus is about this, and what is this comment about Joshua bar nun and fish?

TedM

Hi Jules. Here are some responses I have. I really don't want to get into a long discussion, so will let you respond as you wish, and maybe someone else will want to interact further, as I have more pressing concerns right now.

This relates to timing of appearance. Expectation of an arrival is not relevant to whether Jesus was historical or not. The question of relevance is: Was the expectation for a being that would arrive on earth or not, and whether that being would be a God or man.

The question is in what way would God intervene--via a messiah?, and what kind of messiah would that be--one on earth who was like a man?


The first two are presumably "men", and on earth. The last one I've never heard of as an expectation.


Is this relevant?


How does this tie in with Paul's account of Jesus prior to these events?

And, weren't they all ACTUAL men? Where is the expectation of a messiah that would not be an ACTUAL man and not exist actually on earth?

All the more reason one with that name might be considered the Son of God either by others or by himself. Where is the evidence for a messiah named Joshua who didn't live on earth?


All the more reason a person of that culture might have decided he was the messiah, or those following him. How do these various beliefs discount that in any way?

Why the difference regarding the grave if it was all made up based on this passage? The question again, is what was the expectation for this messiah? Was he expected to be someone who lived and died on earth, or somewhere else? Was he expected to be a true historical person? IF so, then how does this discount a historical Jesus? Is it not possible that ANY religious leader who is crucified would become a potential "suffering servant"? Is it not possible that one of those might have orchestrated his own death? Is it not possible that this passage was used to fill in the unknown gaps surrounding such death?

IF the intent of those drawing upon this passage is to "create" a messiah like the suffering servant, then wouldn't we expect this creation to be on earth, as we find in the gospels? How then, does this explain the theory that the EARLIEST Christians DIDN'T do this, but instead created a suffering servant who lived and died in the skies, and never on earth?

Isn't that a bit of a stretch regarding Luke? I would read it to be saying exactly the opposite.

I agree, but could not a religious zealout have orchestrated all of that himself?


If Jewish belief was widespread, wouldn't you think the Jews would leave some record denying that this Jesus whom it says they crucified never happened? Wouldn't the information between Jews have been accurate enough to at least result in denials of such historicity? Especially by the Jewish leaders--pharisees and sadducees that would have been greatly offended at the claim that they were responsible for killing the very same messiah they had been expecting for centuries?!


Are you saying Paul didn't think Jesus--whom he mentions by name many times--wasn't the messiah?

This may or may not be of help: http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrik...op20/id24.html (references at bottom of page)

You could be right Jules, and you make some interesting points. For me I have a real hard time believing that Jews would have accepted the idea of a messiah who didn't really live on earth, or whom was made up to live on earth but whom they killed. It is easier for me to accept the idea of a person who believed he was the messiah, and who really was killed, reinterpreted to have either orchestrated his own death, or who was inspired to orchestrate his own death in response to threats on his life.

If he really was all made up, I would expect Paul to have been more clear about his form of Jesus as having not lived on earth, and I would expect the myth of his life to have been addressed somewhere in the literature by those who didn't believe he had even existed on earth in the recent past as claimed.

ted

arnoldo

Check out the Talmud, specifically Sandhedrin 43a.

TedM

That AFFIRMS historicity. It doesn't say it never happened and that Jesus was made up!

aa5874

You would expect "Paul" to say Jesus was made up!!

If "Paul" claimed Jesus was made up, "Paul" would be called an heretic, like Marcion, who claimed Jesus was really not made up of flesh.

And, it is drawn to my attention that "Paul" was all made up. See Acts of the Apostles for corroboration. The fabrication of "Paul" was canonised. It is in the records of the Church for all to see for the last 1800 years or so.

TedM

You may want to reread what I wrote.

aa5874

I re-read this, too: